NUMBER 13-14-00663-CR
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG
IN RE DANIEL GOMEZ
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Rodriguez, Benavides, and Perkes
Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1
Relator, Daniel Gomez, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of mandamus on
November 18, 2014, through which he seeks to compel the trial court to “rule on [a]
Motion, titled ‘Petition for Writ of Execution,’ directing the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice (T.D.C.J) to recognize and obey the Court order concerning the explicit details of
Relator’s plea bargain agreement that has him incarcerated.”
To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must establish both that he has no
adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to compel
1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not
required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. Young
v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of App. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007).
If relator fails to meet both of these requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus
should be denied. See id. It is relator’s burden to properly request and show entitlement
to mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st
Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (“Even a pro se applicant for a writ of mandamus must show
himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he seeks.”). In addition to other requirements,
relator must include a statement of facts supported by citations to “competent evidence
included in the appendix or record,” and must also provide “a clear and concise argument
for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or
record.” See generally TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. In this regard, it is clear that relator must
furnish an appendix or record sufficient to support the claim for mandamus relief. See id.
R. 52.3(k) (specifying the required contents for the appendix); R. 52.7(a) (specifying the
required contents for the record).
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus
and the applicable law, is of the opinion that relator has not met his burden to obtain
mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, relator’s
petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).
PER CURIAM
Do not publish.
TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Delivered and filed the 19th
day of November, 2014.
2